OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate if a minimally invasive oral health package with the use of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) or a conventional restorative technique (CT) would result in any perceived benefit from the patients' perspective and if there would be any difference between the two treatment groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomised clinical trial, 99 independently living older adults (65-90 years) with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations using minimally invasive/intervention dentistry (MID) principles. Patients completed an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 questionnaire before and 2 months after treatment. They were also asked to complete a global transition question about their oral health after treatment.
RESULTS: At baseline, the mean OHIP-14 scores recorded were 7.34 (ART) and 7.44 (CT). Two months after treatment intervention, 90 patients answered the OHIP-14 and the mean scores were 7.23 (not significant (n.s.)) and 10.38 (n.s.) for the ART and CT groups, respectively. Overall, 75.5 % of patients stated that their oral health was better compared to the beginning of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Although not shown by the OHIP-14, patients perceived an improvement in their overall oral status after treatment, as demonstrated by the global transition ratings in both groups.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dental treatment using minimally invasive techniques might be a good alternative to treat older individuals, and it can improve their oral health both objectively and subjectively.